Does San Diego face a dry future? This was the headline of an article written by
Cheryl Clark 12/7/1984 in the San Diego Union Tribune. (See below) Water was taken for
granted. Toilets flushed, water flowed from the taps. A personal research
project began. The five year drought in the 1980s caused a lot of anxiety,
but not much was done by those charged with water policy. The result was a
series of stories in the local American Society of Plumbing Engineers
newsletter about how San Diego might look in the future. That eventually led
to a book published in September 2013 titled Water Shock, The Day Southern
California Went Dry.
Yesterday the San Diego City Council approved a way forward to begin the
process of getting the city closer to water independence. Twenty-eight years
after Ms. Clark penned her article, the answer to her question has now been
answered with the unanimous City Council vote for Pure Water San Diego.
We are again in a drought. No one knows how long it will last.
Five years like the last one? Ten years? The importance of the vote yesterday was the
culmination of hard work by all of the stakeholders. Remarkably, an often
divided city council voted unanimously for the resolution. They were on
solid ground. Environmental groups, developers, politicians of all stripes
for once were speaking with one voice to make this happen. Those on the
Water Reliability Coalition are largely responsible for this successful
outcome. The US Congress could take a lesson on how to look out for the
nations welfare by modeling the way the resolution was shepherded through
the minefields of special interests.
Is it a perfect solution? No. In politics perfect solutions are rare. If the
current drought does wear on for ten years, milestones will be reevaluated.
The old adage that the first step is the longest is ever true.
Water Shock is harshly critical of water policy planners and implementers
because over a quarter of a century had passed with little or no action on
the part of those responsible for our water security. And blogs on
www.water-shock.com continued that drumbeat. In fact in the mid-1990s the
city council rejected actions that would have advanced water reliability,
apparently having listened to the derogatory Toilet to Tap phrase.
But lest we get too comfortable with yesterday’s decision, we are much like
the westward bound wagon train of the 19th century. The inventory of
supplies has been checked and leaders named, the route has been planned by
scouts, and the oxen and horses are in the harness ready to hear Wagons Ho!
Ahead lay rivers to ford, mountains to conquer, broken axles and wheels,
nasty weather, and those who may not be as interested in seeing a successful
outcome. Translation: the work is just starting.
So Ms. Clark, you asked the right question. The answer was long in coming.
The next question is: Are the stakeholders up for the challenge of
overcoming the obstacles that will bring San Diego closer to water
independence? We’ll see.
Milt Burgess
Cheryl Clark Staff Writer
PUBLICATION: San Diego Union, The (CA)
SECTION: NEWS
DATE: December 7, 1984
Page: A-1
Is San Diego County facing a water crisis?
Well, yes and no, but mostly, maybe.It depends on whose answer you believe, what time frame they are talking about, and a host of other factors.It depends on how much snow melt splashes into the Colorado River, how hot the weather is that year, how much water evaporates and how much of the river’s flow must be stored in reservoirs by order of the U.S. secretary of the interior.For the near future, it mostly depends on whether the Metropolitan Water District makes any deals with agricultural water agencies in California, and if there ever is a battle between water appropriated for agriculture and water appropriated for people.It’s a sensitive subject for many San Diego water officials, who say that if a serious drought ever occurs, they are prepared to fight to make sure that a glass of drinking water for people in San Diego will take priority over alfalfa irrigation in Imperial Valley.They believe the state Legislature may order agricultural districts such as Imperial to stop growing their crops, and instead allow the water to be distributed to Metropolitan’s member agencies, such as the San Diego County WaterAuthority.Those California agricultural agencies have a right to a huge amount of water, roughly 3.85 million acre-feet a year — eight times what San Diego County uses in a year — at prices that are one-fortieth of the cost to a San Diego water user.Twice in recent years, state voters and legislators have rejected attempts to bring more water to coastal cities through the State Water Project and the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta.In recent years, officials from Metropolitan have predicted dire consequences because of that rejection and have threatened water rationing after 1985, when the Central Arizona Project begins taking its share of river water now going to Southern California.In contrast, environmentalists and consumer groups such as the Working Alliance To Equalize Rates say that’s nonsense. If Southern California needs more water, they say more water can be obtained easily through more efficient use of existing allocations in California, trades with agricultural agencies and reclamation.Increasingly, some water agency officials are tending toward cautious agreement. Paul Engstrand, an attorney for the San Diego County Water Authority and also an attorney for the Imperial Irrigation District, likens the story of Southern California water to an old sailor’s line: “I know what you are, the only question is, what’s your price?”He believes that as long as the price of water is high enough, those who have water — the farmers — will be perfectly willing and able to sell it. The amount of water available is tremendous.While a San Diego County water user may pay as much as $400 or more for an acre-foot of water, farmers in agricultural agencies elsewhere in Southern California pay less than $10.For example, the 500,000-acre Imperial Irrigation District, the largest single user of Colorado River water, pays $9.50. The water is used for livestock, cotton, alfalfa and other products.The Palo Verde Irrigation District, along the river in eastern Riverside County near Blythe, charges farmers about $9.63 an acre-foot for the 349,280 acre-feet it used last year. The district grows alfalfa, wheat, cotton, lettuce and melons.The Coachella Valley County Water District, northwest of the Salton Sea, uses 420,000 acre-feet to irrigate its 82,413 acres of dates, grapefruit, grapes, cotton, alfalfa and eggplant. Coachella charges farmers $17 an acre-foot.There is not only water that could be diverted from agricultural to human use, there is also water that could be saved from seepage and evaporation.A few years ago, 50 of the 88 miles of the Coachella Canal were lined to limit seepage, at a cost of $44 million, and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation estimated that 132,000 acre-feet are now saved because of that lining each year.Such water can be used elsewhere in Southern California. If the remaining 38 miles were lined, the bureau estimates another 30,000 to 40,000 acre-feet could be saved. Coachella has asked the Metropolitan Water District if it would like to help with financing that lining, in exchange for some of the water saved. Metropolitan is thinking about it.o o oFrancesca Krauel, a director with the San Diego County Water Authority, believes there is a potential crisis in the next decade, but has come to the conclusion “there is no shortage of water” for the immediate future.Water authority director Harry Griffen supports the idea of getting agricultural water and believes that if it can be obtained, there won’t be any shortage.”It’s a great deal of water — 3.85 million acre-feet — but these agricultural areas never use all that water. They admit they don’t use it,” he said. That water could be used for people, he contends.Myron Holburt, Metropolitan’s assistant general manager, responds “maybe” to the question of whether there will be a shortage. The maybe depends on whether he is successful in his negotiation for more water from the Imperial Irrigation District. Although an agreement is near, the amount isn’t certain, nor is the price Metropolitan is willing to pay, he said.Holburt also is working for revisions of flood-control criteria on the Colorado River so Metropolitan can get more water in summer, when more water is needed. He’s considering deals with other states for unused allocations, as well as other possibilities.But he cautions that those possibilities, while hopeful, aren’t certain.”We’ll lose the dependability of supply we’ve had in the past” when the Central Arizona Project starts operating, he warns. Metropolitan rarely takes more than 800,000 acre-feet of river water, but recently, because Colorado River flows have been high and the price of the water cheap, it has been taking as much as 1.2 million acre-feet.Technically, when CAP begins operation, expected next December, Metropolitan will be entitled to take only 500,000 to 550,000 acre-feet, but will likely take the full 1.2 million because the river is running very high.”The problem comes if we have a couple of dry years back-to-back,” Holburt said. That will draw the reservoirs down, and other states that can’t use their full allotment of water can have it banked in those reservoirs.”The way Arizona and Nevada look at it,” Holburt explained, “is that San Diegans shouldn’t get any water if the reservoirs are down.”Today, however, those reservoirs are chock full, and probably will remain so at least until next year and probably longer, if weather predictions hold true. River flow measurements are among the highest ever recorded.Those who know the river believe that unless a number of events happen at the same time — dry weather, huge demand, low river flows and, perhaps, an earthquake rending the State Water Project aqueduct — no one’s tap will run dry anytime soon. But 25 to 50 years down the line — the situation could be more severe, when other Sunbelt states start demanding their full share of water.
The Montanan
About Alumni at the University of Montana